Ron sorry for such a short answer without really touching on any point.. I still say more than one idea needs to be entertained so as not to limit the possibilities.
Holding onto the big bang idea in the face of problems such as inflation, star age inconsistencies means simply we should keep our minds open rather than to try and make all that is found fit the preconceived idea of a start..it does no good .. inflation for example needs something better or at the very least a viable mechanism .. an admission that the sums lead to a different start time maybe but I believe adjustments are cruitical if we must accept there may be a start..with this and other loose ends it is a bit early to close the book on the Universe and say it has a start... so simple to think being as smart as we are humans have not figured it out but maybe the first ideas are not the correct ideas.
alex
Still I will take the time to deeply think about all you say and give you a detailed reply in a couple of weeks.
alex
Alex, I like most of what you said but one thing sort of wrecks it, you wrote "It is human experience that qualifies things in the “nature”". I'm certain I don't agree with that
To me 'Nature' is the exact opposite of what you infer. To me Nature is all that there is, regardless of man's existence. I'd even go one step further and dismiss humanity all together from the broader meaning of Nature.
My Universal laws of nature must hole true with or without humanity, but...the conundrum is of course, we would not be here to know, if we did not exist. But I put it to you that long after humanity is extinct, the rest of the universe will remain pretty well as it did during our reign and pretty well in the same manner i.e. oblivious to our presence anyway
Interesting discussion gentlemen. May I suggest you ask Alex Filippenko some of the questions mentioned here directly and see what he can offer on the subject?
He is perhaps second only to Stephen Hawking... Alex will be live on our site on the 29th.
Cheers
Bert
Thanks Bert does he have a blog, website, forum? How can we make contact, would he ignore us as a couple of 'weirdos' ? Do you think he would like my 'Doughnut'?
Alex Filippenko dosnt have a blog or posting site and he is appearing exclusively for us only on the AAIRC Service as have Dr David Malin and Dr Clay Sherrod in the past events we have hosted.
On Sunday 29th April 3.00Pm you go to our AAIRC Webpage on http://www.darksky.net.au/aairc.html and floow the log in instructions.
Also, make sure you log into the #astronomers channel.
See you then.
Bert
Ron not withstanding you may have misinterpreted my reference to nature and "human qualification" of nature I am happy to say I find what you have said generally reasuring as you in fact state the position as I see it to be.
My reference to human experience and human qualification has only to do with the way humans interprept things from their immediate experience.. the world was once flat and this was reasonable to all looking on..however the human experience did not reflect "nature".
Does this "Alex" chap present himself as the next whoever or is he hailed to be so...what am I missing.. where am I ..who are all these people??
Ron ...so... given that we agree on "nature" and I have already addmitted you are very persuasive,... are you at least prepared to admit that the opportunity for a different approach to the big bang could be entertained simply to fix it..
Inflation seems a sore point.. which has impact on age (if you are going for the finite model).
I think the reason why they needed inflation in the first place was to explain how everything could be the same...again human experience has probably confused the issue...a small problem gained from human experience was dealt with in a manner that one would rather etertain the problem raised that inflation sought to cure... a mechanism may well exist that can can convey information from one end of the Universe to the other.. gravity rain will do it if no one else wants the job... but the model was fixed when it was not necessarily broke...if you support the finite model which I dont all the time...
but of course I like the infinite model because it makes so much sense..from human experience that is..
if the current model has to defend itself from attack it must come up with reasonable explanations that can be evidenced by reasonable observation... seeking to find the traces of inflation is a big ask (even if it was part of the play..which I doubt..)... if they dont find it does it mean it was not there or will it mean the equipment was not up to the task... instead of dieing it can only grow from the experience of testing... this is not science but it is the way things go.. at least for a time... We will have to wait for all the current brains to retire before something different can surface..maybe.
The current big bang model proves nothing other than human experience says... keep at it until we make it fit... thankfully we have moved from a central positioning of our being to one where we can look a little less impassionately at all that is around us but we still unfortunately think we are central... reasonable but that prevents sometimes moving on a little further..we again get bogged down in the human experience.
Ron you say, and all humans say, we are objective... but they/we are not... they can not be unless they have been nuetered and permanently separated from all their kind.
To become mere observers.... and if in the prescense of such a being ...we will act differently... but the propencity to take it personal and be guided by popular belief still will be apparent.
Already most people have bulit a Universe that may be flawed instead of seeing the flaws and fixing them.. we can tolerate them ...for to admit the possibility of a flaw even the posible existence may cast doubt on the model.
The model needs the doubt fixed or it cant grow.
Fortunately I have married Gravity rain to the current thinking so humans can move forward.
We once looked at the circle we cast on the Moon and could not figure that we were "round" we now look at galaxies held together by "gravity rain" yet can not figure that such power may reach us here in our human experience and of course it is very easy to see that it must reach us here notwithstanding our "human experience".
Still Ron I must say I am not sure exactly what point you disagree with me upon.
I understand that you may care to keep your presumed endorsement of "gravity rain" a secret for fear of public ridicule but if you can use it in the privacy of your own home I absolutely recomend it.
alex
Had a look at "Alex" ..what a nice life ...lots of work but neat areas.
He has a kind face.
I wonder where he stands on gravity rain? infinite or non infinite Universe, gallaxy line up, red shift, back ground radiation, will the space craft stop and speed off finally.. hope to see te day.
alex
Alex you are a cheeky Devil, such a well worded response, and then as usual, the last sentence designed to bait me so that I simply must respond, a very ingenious 'chess' strategy, that you continue to use on me.
Okay, how about this, you are perhaps the worlds leading proponent of Gravity Rain, and I would estimate that the majority of people would not understand what that term means. Why? Well because when doing a Google search, the Mother of all information, not much comes up except some references that trace back to you
So, officially, once and for all, finally and completely, I requested publicly, that you explain to all the meaning of 'Gravity Rain'. This can be done from a human or non-human viewpoint, if you can figure out a way of separating yourself from what you are going to write
As for the rest of creation, existence, beginnings and endings, we more-or-less agree, so lets not bog down on mere details, facts can always be manufactured to suit the storyteller
I swear that if your interpretation of gravity rain makes even one iota of sense to me that I will acknowledge it and from that time forward, will walk at your side banging the 'GR' cymbal wherever you go. Honest injun
Mmmm so let me get this straight..if I can show you the secret you will in essence come over..well of course you will ..you are not a person who would abandon the truth when it is presented to you.
So you are really trying to tell me that I have been too fast with the detail and maybe you missed the thrust of the idea.
Again Ron most reasonable view you hold may I say.
The search sometimes has shown me at the top, but that seems to relate to recent past activity. It is a little scarey I was top dog re abel 2029 for days why ..I dont know.
The idea of gravity rain is simply that each object in the Universe (be it a infinite or finite Universe) throws out particles or energy such that creates a pressure through out the Universe.
Take time to think about how many "particles" reach your finger tip when out at night..when the idea is more understandable.
The effect of gravity comes from the shielding of an object locally from this pressure.
This pressure blows at "C" so think of it as a wind from everywhere..I expect the particles to be small as they may well have mass yet travel at c.
We are held on the planet by the "rain" (or wind) coming down ..the rain from thru the planet having lost some of its energy cant "push us up" so the "push" from above is greater..we now have gravity.
The energy lost from GR in the middle of the planet may provide the "heat" "speed" whatever we believe to be there.
Galaxies will not sit the way they do if they rely on the mythical force of attraction... even at the speed of light an attraction form of gravity will not hold them in shape..the force must be an external pushing force..they call it dark energy..I call it gravity rain..I see that it does not stop somewhere outside the solar system but in fact is the force that "pushes" us to the planet.
Space time offers no explanation of the force that "bends" space time I simply say it is this "rain" or particles from "everywhere" that bends space time.
Nuetrinos are a great for the job... but if you think of the fact that all points everywhere are reached by every part of the Universe and then ask could not each of these particles "push" you may see where I am coming from.
I simply say that attraction is not a real force..there is none..it is a human experience with which they seek to define matters that will not be defined that way..
The galaxies say the force is external and pushing..why should humans be able to hold such a force at bay..does it stop somewhere past the Moon or where???
No experiement to support attraction yet it is an established "fact"..it is not a fact until "proved"..
So dont be afraid to ask if you do not grasp something or there is an inconsistency that troubles you... I will be the happiest person if this can be show to be wrong..so does your best...to help me face the reality that maybe I am on the wrong track.
I say the space craft leaving the solar system will find they become "stuck" because of the pushing approach to gravity..they will then appear to fly off at 350 klms approx per sec... being the speed the solar system runs away from them at... they are slowing down now and no one knows why... unless they use the mystery dark energy card...mmm
The heat away from the Sun that can not be explained is simply an interection between the GR and the outpour of the Sun... current attempts to get energy "up there" to me are fanciful ... but we shall see.
They are looking for packets of gas to carry it up... maybe but the razor sees me winning I reckon.
There is one other guy who sees it somewhat similar to me.. I have justed started contact.
Notwithstanding his ideas being similar to mine he seems ok.
Has qualifications and good at math and physics.. its nice to have one other person out there I guess. But he calls it SPUE dynamices..mmm it does stick in the mind I suppose.
So the fact you have not really disagreed with anything to date means you more or less agree with the general propositions ..the reasonable general propositions.
[quote=xelasnave;213936]The idea of gravity rain is simply that each object in the Universe (be it a infinite or finite Universe) throws out particles or energy such that creates a pressure through out the Universe.
I would agree that everything of substance in the universe is a part of the universe, thus no matter how minute, still plays a role in the makeup of said universe. I would not say that in this sense I radiate energy that could travel beyond my immediate locality and I would not think my presence would exert pressure on anything other than my shoes.
The effect of gravity comes from the shielding of an object locally from this pressure.
You seem to be inferring negative gravity, a force equal to and opposite to positive gravity, if this is your meaning I am not opposed to that.
This pressure blows at "C" so think of it as a wind from everywhere..I expect the particles to be small as they may well have mass yet travel at c.
This does sound very much like the Neutrino, and the jury is still out on whether Neutrinos are the fabled 'Dark Energy, Dark Matter'.
We are held on the planet by the "rain" (or wind) coming down ..the rain from thru the planet having lost some of its energy cant "push us up" so the "push" from above is greater..we now have gravity.
I don't buy this, gravity from our planets perspective is clearly understood, so much in fact that we can re-create it and sell it off to wealthy tourists. When you leave our atmosphere and go into space, our humans that float around in say the ISS do not have an upwards force or inwards force from the actual space station which weights vastly more than the human, which in your model should be forced and jammed clearly in the centre of the space station hemmed in on all sides by opposing forces.
The energy lost from GR in the middle of the planet may provide the "heat" "speed" whatever we believe to be there.
Without giving it much thought, I would suspect that gravity is strongest at the Earths core, I would take this under advisement however from anyone that knows better.
Galaxies will not sit the way they do if they rely on the mythical force of attraction... even at the speed of light an attraction form of gravity will not hold them in shape..the force must be an external pushing force..they call it dark energy..I call it gravity rain..I see that it does not stop somewhere outside the solar system but in fact is the force that "pushes" us to the planet.
You cover three large areas of science in that one very complex sentence. However, I do not disagree that what ever we call it that some explanation must exist that causes the galaxies in the universe to act as they do. Of course I have explained to you previously that using Doughnut Theory the forces are not what you think, it is more of a flow along a well trodden route. If you don't like the doughnut shape, think of the universe as a very large river that is essentially circular. Then think of a cross section of the river as being almost without end, so that it would be considered infinite but not quiet. Think of the cross section as flowing in a similar circular pattern as the the entire circular pattern of the river in the first place. This is hard to visualise, so don't worry if you don't get it, but bending space-time is not what you think, it is more along the lines of the flow of existence always heading towards where it came from in every direction, grasp that and you are with me.
Space time offers no explanation of the force that "bends" space time I simply say it is this "rain" or particles from "everywhere" that bends space time.
I explained above that there is no actual bending per se, bending implies a rigidness at some point that no longer remains rigid i.e. bends, this is a nonsense, space-time flows bubbling along by existence, and all that goes to make existence up. All the forces within nature/existence flow from the beginning of existence to the end of existence, the end of existence signals the beginning of the next iteration of existence and so it goes...if you like you can use the word infinite in this sense, but it's not truly infinite because at the point of annihilation, all existence ceases, thus not infinite. The act of ceasing to exist, that 'Universal singularity' is what fuels the creation of existence, how do I know this? I suspect it because this follows the immutable laws of the universe that we have all observed, the continual birth, growth and death of the individual parts that the universe is comprised of. Thus the saying that the sum is greater than the whole could be rewritten slightly to, The Sum should follow the same fate as the component parts.
Neutrinos are a great for the job... but if you think of the fact that all points everywhere are reached by every part of the Universe and then ask could not each of these particles "push" you may see where I am coming from.
Don't like your use of the word push, however I know what you mean. You mean cause an effect on something, if that's what you mean, I agree.
So don't be afraid to ask if you do not grasp something or there is an inconsistency that troubles you... I will be the happiest person if this can be show to be wrong..so does your best...to help me face the reality that maybe I am on the wrong track.
Thank you, you are beyond generous
I say the space craft leaving the solar system will find they become "stuck" because of the pushing approach to gravity..they will then appear to fly off at 350 klms approx per sec... being the speed the solar system runs away from them at... they are slowing down now and no one knows why... unless they use the mystery dark energy card...mmm
I need more time to think about this, I have no comment at this stage. Can you give a far more detailed explanation of what you mean?
The heat away from the Sun that can not be explained is simply an interaction between the GR and the outpour of the Sun... current attempts to get energy "up there" to me are fanciful ... but we shall see.
Not sure of your point here, please rephrase.
There is one other guy who sees it somewhat similar to me.. I have just started contact.
Does he have a beard?
Notwithstanding his ideas being similar to mine he seems ok.
Hmnnnnnn
Has qualifications and good at math and physics.. its nice to have one other person out there I guess. But he calls it SPUE dynamics..mmm it does stick in the mind I suppose.
Yes indeed, and people instinctively react to my Doughnut Theory, perhaps I will search for another name after all
So the fact you have not really disagreed with anything to date means you more or less agree with the general propositions ..the reasonable general propositions.
No because I have not disagreed does not infer that I more or less agree, it simply means I have not disagreed before. Like you I am open to input on a continual basis, and should I be shown I am in error in one part or all of what I say then I will immediately acknowledge it and add the new learning into my heap, which continues to grow every single day. My fondest wish, like you, is to be shown categorically that I am wrong, this is the only way that I will evolve and grow, this trial and error and testing and observing results is science and like you, is the tenant by which I abide.
To help you understand the 'Doughnut Theory' a bit better, here is a hastily scribbled diagram, please accept my apology at how amateur it is, I have never claimed to be an artist, however if you study it closely, you will start to see the way it flows (hopefully)
Ron you said
"I would not say that in this sense I radiate energy that could travel beyond my immediate locality and I would not think my presence would exert pressure on anything other than my shoes".
Now Ron I find that hard to believe of course but I was referring to bodies such as stars, not that you are not a star in your own right but the ones like our Sun.
I believe if you adopt the notion og gravity rain the need for dark matter disappears. Dark matter is a myth. Dark energy is not.
You also said
"I don't buy this, gravity from our planets perspective is clearly understood, so much in fact that we can re-create it and sell it off to wealthy tourists. When you leave our atmosphere and go into space, our humans that float around in say the ISS do not have an upwards force or inwards force from the actual space station which weights vastly more than the human, which in your model should be forced and jammed clearly in the centre of the space station hemmed in on all sides by opposing forces.
Dont go by their ads there is no 5 star rating for space hotels yet.
Gravity rain holds us suspecded in space, so we appear weightless and uneffected by gravity. The point is we are at that point suspended on "all sides" by the force.. The shielding of the space hotel walls (hotel walls are always thin) is insignificant but I imagine if you had walls made of lead and 50 meters thick you would notice their effect... but still only a minimal effect...
And you said...
"I need more time to think about this, I have no comment at this stage. Can you give a far more detailed explanation of what you mean?"
Yes I can. In fact I wrote something here sometime ago and hopefully my ideas have not changed such that it is not a fair representation of my current ideas.
I will have a look for the post and provide a link. But simply put.. space will be found to be "sticky" because of the "pushing" arrangement... pushing is not exactly what is going on... GR losses energy when it encounters mass so on side of the gr supply has greater pressure.
However if it is the way I say they will slow and stop and speed up... they can not respond this way in a Universe where attraction exists.. they are slowing at the moment needless to say I see this as the start of my prediction being correct...so I hope it is the start of my prediction.
I believe "they" now say it is dark energy that is the cause of the craft slowing up,.. many would have thought that in open space the craft would "take off" but that is only if you see space as empty, I dont cause its full of gravity rain.. well thats what I have said from the start and the craft will get stuck firstly then be carried quickley away from us...
GR is maybe a better defined dark energy... If you see it works this way you do not need "matter" in the current context, to create the gravity they seek to attribute to dark matter..there is none... there needs to be none because although mass is relevant in gravity it is not relevant to generate dark energy..dark energy is generated simply from "all the star light" as it were.. even your energy generated contributes a little to the pressure.
And Ron lastly you said...
"No because I have not disagreed does not infer that I more or less agree, it simply means I have not disagreed before. Like you I am open to input on a continual basis, and should I be shown I am in error in one part or all of what I say then I will immediately acknowledge it and add the new learning into my heap, which continues to grow every single day. My fondest wish, like you, is to be shown categorically that I am wrong, this is the only way that I will evolve and grow, this trial and error and testing and observing results is science and like you, is the tenant by which I abide."
It is a compliment that you read what I have written Ron, there has not been a time where I have laid a trap hidden in verbosity that you have not easily seen.
I will look more closely at your Universe later ...
And finally you said.........
"I explained above that there is no actual bending per se, bending implies a rigidness at some point that no longer remains rigid i.e. bends, this is a nonsense, space-time flows bubbling along by existence, and all that goes to make existence up"
Space time is the human "description" of space in a geometry format. When talking of space time I think of it like a 3 dimentional graph, the graph representing different "conditions" for the purposes of space time discussion but in my Universe say it is the gr that is responsible for the different "conditions" ..Space time is the theory and observation GR is the machinery of the opperation.
However when I talk of space time it is in the context of the "graph" the current popular description generates.
To help you understand the 'Doughnut Theory' a bit better, here is a hastily scribbled diagram, please accept my apology at how amateur it is, I have never claimed to be an artist, however if you study it closely, you will start to see the way it flows (hopefully)
I think you are going round in circles... my problem is that you seek to suggest time will pass a point already passed and will be passed again and again.
The suggestion of a big cruch has never won favour with me.. an infinite Universe will not allow it..a finite one in effect has to round up every last photon and put it back in the jar.. possible but I just dont like it.
I think your attempt to explain the concept sufficient to gather the drift of your premise.
i find it interesting and as good as any deas out there.. after gravity rain..and I bet if you looked you may find it in your Universe.
I wonder how many reasonable models for a Universe one could come up with..infinite maybe.
alex
I think you are going round in circles... my problem is that you seek to suggest time will pass a point already passed and will be passed again and again.
Alex, I am not in favour of saying time, ten years ago I wrote several essays on 'Time' and I disputed then there was such a thing. Rather I would say location is what people mean by time. It's a hard concept to grasp and the stuff of an entire new thread and I forget most of what I wrote, but it did help get me a pass at Swinburne so it can't have been all bad.
When you think of a 'time' you are actually thinking of what happen at a particular location <not time>, because we are living a liner existence, always moving in the direction of my doughnut, towards the singularity, you can plot your location when any event occurred.
This is a far better method than inventing a chronology of events and calling it time. it's the order of the events and where they occurred. Try this quick quiz grasshopper, and be honest, quickly remember your 30th Birthday!!!!
Well what did you remember, describe it to me, I bet, I guarantee you that the reference of your memory was based on the location and what you did, not the time. The time is a manufactured human convenience, but once again lets say 10 billion years ago before our star was born, we can still place events chronologically because we can nominate the event and it's location, relevant to today.
So I reject you saying I am replaying the events in a time sense, but I have gone on record as stating that existence itself is destroyed and created instantaneously, if you consider this a replay, then yes that's what I believe is happening.
Btw, where were you at the 'Big Crunch' - good question huh? Notice I never said when was it
If it's unbalanced it would wobble it's self into annihilation very similar to a singularity, thus it cannot be infinite - check and mate
Well the imbalance in the gr will be in all directions.
GR does not argue with space time.
Space time it still seems to me says neither gravity attracts or that it "pushes" ..the approach is an observation of relationships between objects and space.
Singularity is finally the pointy end of the space time expression.. it is produced when the numbers become extreme... the mass of a black hole distorts everything to a singularity.. on paper.
Personaly I wonder if they can exist in the real Universe.
Maybe matter can not exist in such a way to form a black hole.
Maybe the concentration required is never reached... because of a rule we no nothing about preventing mass concentration past a point.
I feel uncomfortable that we can only ever infer their existence by "wobbles" and long range "observation" I would like to see a truck load of it ...mmm maybe not it would be the ultimate shield ..so you would be pushed to death upon it.
We after all admit that conditions will be so different to what we know inside a black hole that current science may well be meaningless.
Perhaps "nature" will not allow the concentration of mass required to form a black hole.. the theory predicts one if the numbers are right..maybe the numbers can not be right in so far as matter simply will not accumulate as required.
The possibility of GR being in the mix suggests alternatives but it can follow the space time math where ever it goes I guess.
If this be the case (matter is prevented from accumulation past a point) we have no singularity in the real Universe and that sounds simple but that is what the razor dictates.
So much comes from getting a little bit of data and extrapolating extremes.. expansion of the Universe..its one thing to note an expansion and another to infer it started at a point I feel.
A black hole comes from the possibility of concentration of mass and the effect of gravity (a force no one has any ideas on..current company excluded) at the extreme end of the extrapolation...
I just wonder why black holes.. they sortta dont fit in.. not even as a central hub of a galaxy.. their relative mass has little bearing on holding stuff in place..dark energy does that.. so what is their purpose... other than to satisfy the extrapolation of the geometry. Are they gobbling up their galaxies to reach singularity?? and join the other singularities to form the ultimate singularity???
Still that is just my thinking aloud..sorry.
Well Ron it has been a great game.. we must play again some time.
does he have a blog, website, forum? How can we make contact, would he ignore us as a couple of 'weirdos' ? 
does it ever get crowded?
Alex you are a cheeky Devil, such a well worded response, and then as usual, the last sentence designed to bait me so that I simply must respond, a very ingenious 'chess' strategy, that you continue to use on me.
